3 ms·

Yeah, I'm not following your argument. It seems you're saying that since the "cloud" stack is becoming focused on entertainment consumption, we should use somet

by lhorie 16y ago

Yeah, I'm not following your argument. It seems you're saying that since the "cloud" stack is becoming focused on entertainment consumption, we should use something more focused for business. Is that what you mean? Out there in the real world, people use Photoshop to do graphics because the cloud just doesn't work for them. Microsoft Word and Excel because they can't afford the risk of leaking documents out. AutoCAD. ProTools. Maia. Powerpoint. Snagit. Adobe Acrobat. Supermarket cash register software, air traffic control software, etc etc. Use the right tool for the job and all that.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
No this really isn't much of an anti-tech rant, although it looks like some folks mistakenly took it for that. Trying to shorten it, there is a huge amount of stuff in the world that you can accomplish with just 3 very simple UI controls. HTML has gone zillions of miles past that. Distraction can become a productivity issue in itself. Perhaps there is an opportunity for a vastly more simple technology interaction experience. Or -- the iPod did one thing and did it well. That's why it was such a huge hit. Can you out iPod the iPod? Is there further to go down the simplicity path and still keep usefulness? I think there is.
- lhorie 16y ago
  I'd say simplifying wouldn't really work in today's world. e.g. enterprise software development: Things like calendar controls, auto-completing fields and sortable paginated tables - which are far more complex than what plain vanilla HTML offers - are client requirements these days. Sure you can make nice games and distraction sites with the same technology, but then, that's what monitoring sotfware exists for (and like I mentioned in the other comment, I don't think technology solutions are particularly good to deal w/ distractions)
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    I don't know. Let's try it. I'll mock up something with the minimal amount of controls that still accomplishes a useful task, say reading HN, and post it. Shouldn't be too difficult to do.
    - lhorie 16y ago
      I think the HN UI is already simple enough as it is :) My point is that clients who pay money often want complex UI elements.
      - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
        Do they really? Or do programmers like complex UI elements and then have trained clients that busier screens are somehow more valuable? The simplest design is not pencil and paper. It's a neural interface that presents us with only the important information and allows us to think of the answer. The computer then executes it. The next simplest would be a question with a physical button to push for yes/no. The problem (I think) is that each layer of the OSI stack, each piece of the O/S, each tool vendor, each website out to make a buck -- they're all demanding more and more attention to things that are not important, but distracting. If a neural interface is ever to work, we're going to have to start setting some standards for what's appropriate stimulus and what isn't. Hence the discussion on the extremes of design simplicity
        lhorie 16y ago
        >> Do they really? Or do programmers like complex UI elements and then have trained clients that busier screens are somehow more valuable? Hmm, have you ever dealt with clients? :) Jokes aside, it might be a combination of both (on a macro scale anyways). Re: neural interface - erm, if we're gonna talk about hand-wavy vaporware, here's mine: singularity.

by lhorie 16y ago

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

No this really isn't much of an anti-tech rant, although it looks like some folks mistakenly took it for that. Trying to shorten it, there is a huge amount of stuff in the world that you can accomplish with just 3 very simple UI controls. HTML has gone zillions of miles past that. Distraction can become a productivity issue in itself. Perhaps there is an opportunity for a vastly more simple technology interaction experience. Or -- the iPod did one thing and did it well. That's why it was such a huge hit. Can you out iPod the iPod? Is there further to go down the simplicity path and still keep usefulness? I think there is.

lhorie 16y ago
I'd say simplifying wouldn't really work in today's world. e.g. enterprise software development: Things like calendar controls, auto-completing fields and sortable paginated tables - which are far more complex than what plain vanilla HTML offers - are client requirements these days. Sure you can make nice games and distraction sites with the same technology, but then, that's what monitoring sotfware exists for (and like I mentioned in the other comment, I don't think technology solutions are particularly good to deal w/ distractions)
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  I don't know. Let's try it. I'll mock up something with the minimal amount of controls that still accomplishes a useful task, say reading HN, and post it. Shouldn't be too difficult to do.
  - lhorie 16y ago
    I think the HN UI is already simple enough as it is :) My point is that clients who pay money often want complex UI elements.
    - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
      Do they really? Or do programmers like complex UI elements and then have trained clients that busier screens are somehow more valuable? The simplest design is not pencil and paper. It's a neural interface that presents us with only the important information and allows us to think of the answer. The computer then executes it. The next simplest would be a question with a physical button to push for yes/no. The problem (I think) is that each layer of the OSI stack, each piece of the O/S, each tool vendor, each website out to make a buck -- they're all demanding more and more attention to things that are not important, but distracting. If a neural interface is ever to work, we're going to have to start setting some standards for what's appropriate stimulus and what isn't. Hence the discussion on the extremes of design simplicity
      - lhorie 16y ago
        >> Do they really? Or do programmers like complex UI elements and then have trained clients that busier screens are somehow more valuable? Hmm, have you ever dealt with clients? :) Jokes aside, it might be a combination of both (on a macro scale anyways). Re: neural interface - erm, if we're gonna talk about hand-wavy vaporware, here's mine: singularity.